If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Maybe it's the observers and not the work. Actually, that probably explains why a lot of nudity that is intended as sexual exists, at least in terms of our current society -- because people want to see that.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

You kind of just displayed the sexism you just talked about. Yes, there are handfuls of people are are dependent - including but not limited to women. But these ideas that women as a gender are helpless, frail and vulnerable has been an idea for hundreds of years despite it not being true, and it's popped up in popular culture over and over, in movie after movie, in game after game. And the more an idea gets repeated, the more likely people are to believe it's true and propagate it (just look at how many Americans believe Obama is Muslim thanks to Fox News saying it over and over). So yes, when you keep hearing the message "X is Y" over and over, it does make a difference. All she's saying is that it's time to stop repeating the same messages and ideas.

Wait, what? In what way did I display sexism?

I said that some girls like to pretend they're helpless....but I know more then enough girls who don't.

And I never said it didn't make a difference, I just said I didn't know if it made a difference or not. I just seemed like such a little thing to me....the idea that it's a cumulative effect, the idea that it stacks up, does make sense to me.

Not all the time, sometimes it's used for comedy and sometimes for beauty. The settings don't help either. It's a cliché that ruins a lot of works as you can't stop thinking about the stereotype that has been drilled into your skull. It's also the tone of American society and those that are similar where it's common to sexualize women in the media whereas in some other countries, not so much. That said, I think we should save "Thank you, Mario but our princess is in another castle." for another time and take the bull by the horns.

Maybe the princess should be in another castle because she's beating the piss out of an evil dictator. Maybe she could not be emotion-powered. Baby steps, I guess. I kind of would like to see a scenario like that -- the hero thinks he has to go rescue the princess, but she's already rescued herself and kicked the villain's ***. It would probably be too anticlimactic and mold-breaking to be popular, though.

You know what female character was blatantly feminine but was still a badass mother****er who never got captured in any of the games she appeared in? Dixie Kong. She wasn't human, though, so she probably doesn't count.

Seriously that guys was a total prick. I love how he suggests that if they make a video game where a girl is the main character and kicks ***, that it will bomb miserably.

Proud claimer of Cyndaquil and Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed !!
Also proud claimer of Assassin's Creed 2 the game!!
Just became the proud claimer of the Marvel's Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show ^_^!!!

*sigh* well I saw other videos that bash on her and the fact that I saw some of her videos and I saw that things that she said where at times lies, but I gotta say, when he said about a girl being a Main characther and kicking *ss and that it wouldn't sell at all, One word METROID!!!!!!!!

Welp, everyone throw in the towels. Feminism is over. It's clearly been debunked. We can't argue against facts. Pop culture clearly can't be criticized. EVER. As the author states the games were just designed to make a profit. You can't argue with profit. Jb, I now own you. I'm selling you for a profit. FOR A PROFIT!

The simple answer is that it has to do with how we treat the human body. Western culture (in large parts thanks to religion) has not normalized nudity - instead, we sexualize the human body and make viewing it taboo. Plus the thing you hide and call off-limits the most is often what fascinates people. Google the subject if it interests you and leave the topic for another time/place.

Originally Posted by Zachmac

Wait, what? In what way did I display sexism?

I said that some girls like to pretend they're helpless....but I know more then enough girls who don't.

And I never said it didn't make a difference, I just said I didn't know if it made a difference or not. I just seemed like such a little thing to me....the idea that it's a cumulative effect, the idea that it stacks up, does make sense to me.

My apologies - I was trying to make a point. You said these repeated tropes don't always have an affect, but you then pointed out that you knew people who acted as if they had been affected by the repetition of that trope.

The fact that there is a cumulative effect is true regardless of what we might believe. When you have many different mediums and medias propagating the same message, the message starts to stick. There is the example of how all these outlets question Barack Obama's religion until a segment of the population believes he's actually Muslim. There's the fact that (primarily) women are constantly told that they're not skinny enough or tan enough or pretty enough, to the extent that a huge number of prepubescent girls have body image issues and many more teenagers suffer from eating disorders. There is undeniable cause-and-affect in what we say and how people react.

Originally Posted by Phlogiston

Maybe the princess should be in another castle because she's beating the piss out of an evil dictator. Maybe she could not be emotion-powered. Baby steps, I guess. I kind of would like to see a scenario like that -- the hero thinks he has to go rescue the princess, but she's already rescued herself and kicked the villain's ***. It would probably be too anticlimactic and mold-breaking to be popular, though.

You know what female character was blatantly feminine but was still a badass mother****er who never got captured in any of the games she appeared in? Dixie Kong. She wasn't human, though, so she probably doesn't count.

I don't think that's a bad idea, and aside from potentially being anti-climactic (which can be fixed such as by, for instance, afterwards having the final boss fight where the male and female characters have to team up) I don't think it would hurt a game on its own. If the rest of the game is fun and original, then even those who don't like the ending should still enjoy the rest of it. (Mass Effect is still a spectacular series despite the reaction to the end of 3, for instance.)

Yes, Dixie would still count because she's female. That said, just because she was never captured doesn't mean she's immune to other tropes. (I don't know much about the character so I can't say for certain, of course.) Keep in mind that there will be many more videos to come.

Originally Posted by Phlogiston

Are we assuming, for that argument, that the newest Tomb Raider doesn't exist?

I mean, I assume that at all times, so there's that.

Sarkeesian will probably discuss these games in another video. Again, this was only the first of many.

My thoughts? They're games. They're not meant to be over-analyzed like this.

So are you interested in analysis or not?

I'm amused that you didn't/couldn't respond to any of my points, so instead you linked to a video that misses half of Sarkeesian's points. I'm all for criticizing her video, but this was a poor attempt at best. Heck, let's counter his points:

Thunderf00t starts by ignoring half of Sarkeesian's video, and subsequently her points about the Mario and Zelda series. Good way to start an analysis.

0:45 - Thunderf00t takes Sarkeesian's quote out of context by implying that she called Double Dragon itself regressive. What she was actually saying was that the scene in every Double Dragon game where the woman gets punched in the stomach and dragged away (with her behind/underwear in full view) is what is regressive. He obviously ignores that she is talking specifically about the damsel in distress trope, nothing else. She might talk about this character outside of this trope in other videos, but in this one video she was not going to cover everything. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting this, because the video even says Part 1 in the title.

2:05 - Thunderf00t claims that Sarkeesian is somehow saying that tropes only negatively affect women. She never says this. Her videos focus on women because she is knowledgeable about and interested in the subject. Anyone is free to discuss Tropes VS Men, Tropes VS Homosexuals, Tropes VS Black People, or whatever else.

3:00 - Thunderf00t talks about how her brief overview of the trope she is focusing doesn't describe the game well, missing the fact that she's focusing on the trope, not the game as a whole. He essentially says that the fact that the male characters care so much they're willing to save her somehow changes things. Sarkeesian's point was that it doesn't matter, especially because her kidnapping is about developing a male's character arc alone - he lost something he values, so he goes after it. Whether this something is a woman or a valuable item, the result is the same - the women isn't going to save herself, and thus she is no different than an object. Whether or not he goes after the object does not change the core of the trope, ie. women is kidnapped and can't get away herself.

5:00 - He continues missing the point so sorely it's sad. She's not saying "don't help people who've been captured" - she's saying "the portrayal of people who have been captured if often of a woman who needs saving by a man." We're talking about portrayal here.

9:00 - Pretty much just "look at me, I can make stupid arguments!" Weird complaint that men have to go through so much to save women. He forgets that her point is that men get to do things, but their female counterparts are relegated to just sitting around and waiting until the man shoes up, instead of doing something, like say attempting to free herself.

11:20 - Thunderf00t claims that in trying to make a profit, it's okay to have poor writing, make no effort to be original, and insult a good chunk of your potential market (because yes, girls buy games too).

12:00 - More stupid arguments. I'm so impressed.

12:45 - Thunderf00t tells a pop culture critic to make games for women. The same way Sarkeesian isn't knowledgeable about or interested in discussing how tropes affect men, the same applies for making games. There are already female indie game-making companies, and they're already ignored and insulted plenty. He also implies games with strong female characters won't make a profit - except that some do.

13:25 - Shames her for being a critic rather than a creator, as if that's a bad thing. Tell that to all the respected book, film, theatre and food critics who don't produce books/film/theatre/food.

16:00 - Thunderf00t talks about the biological differences between men and women. He does not explain why this means women shouldn't be treated equally to men. Should we not all be treated equally, no matter our age, race, gender, religions, nationality?

18:45 - Thunderf00t, like others, points out that Sarkeesian has disabled comments on her video. Because this clearly has nothing to do with her not wanting any more threats of rape and violence, which she's been receiving ever since she proposed the project months ago. It's not as if other venues of criticizing her aren't open - Thunderf00t himself is speaking in a video response.

I'm not against criticism, but if you're going to try, or refer to people who do try (especially after claiming that you don't care about the topic), then at least use arguments that refer to and refute her points.

Originally Posted by aloasa

*facepalm* please don't tell me that all feminist are like that

...like what, exactly? All Sarkeesian did was analyze games, the same way book reviewers analyze books, movie critics analyze movies, food critics criticize food, and so on. People have been reviewing and criticizing and analyzing for thousands of years - this isn't something that's unique to feminists.

To repeat, in case this has been unclear, this video is only the first of many. If you're wondering why she didn't discuss a certain character or game yet, it's probably because she will do so at a later point.

I'm amused that you didn't/couldn't respond to any of my points, so instead you linked to a video that misses half of Sarkeesian's points.
-snip-

It's not that I couldn't respond. There just wasn't much room to do so.

Originally Posted by Psychic

Plenty of things get "over-analyzed," but as long as there is content, there will be people there to criticize it. Just because you don't think it's worth making a change, doesn't mean that's actually the case. If you really don't feel it's worth even talking about, then you shouldn't mind if people go ahead and improve it.

This here is true. Regardless of how I feel, people are going to criticize.

Originally Posted by Psychic

This video was concentrating specifically on the damsel in distress trope, so she was solely talking about examples of damsels in distress, and was not going to address anything else in that video. Also, there still are plenty of young gamers who are still forming opinions on women, and between seeing female video game characters portrayed in these ways and hearing adult male gamers harass female players, you don't create an environment for a generation of gamers with particularly high views of or even much respect for women. Is there a correlation between poor representations of women in gaming and how gamers treat women? Possibly.

I can't really find any statistics of the amount of people that are actually impressionalize by this specific trope, so I can't really argue against it at the moment. Also that I agree with Kochou in that saying how she doesn't talk about men or any other thing such thing would in fact be going off topic. Looking back, the video doesn't leave much arguing room due the narrow topic and claims that more videos will come later. I'll personally wait for the second, or third video, or a video that uses a wider, broader topic but I actually get into this.

I don't think that's a bad idea, and aside from potentially being anti-climactic (which can be fixed such as by, for instance, afterwards having the final boss fight where the male and female characters have to team up) I don't think it would hurt a game on its own. If the rest of the game is fun and original, then even those who don't like the ending should still enjoy the rest of it. (Mass Effect is still a spectacular series despite the reaction to the end of 3, for instance.)

Yeah, it's still doable, but I think a lot of players would feel cheated. Let's say, for instance, at the end of Super Mario Bros., Peach asked you what took you so long because she'd already rescued herself... when the stated plot was basically to save the princess. That kind of "not normal" closure is probably "just too different" for a lot of people.

A lot of people with very narrow views, arguably. But maybe -- and not to get all David Cage here -- my views are just different. A lot of people just don't like things that break molds.

Yes, Dixie would still count because she's female. That said, just because she was never captured doesn't mean she's immune to other tropes. (I don't know much about the character so I can't say for certain, of course.) Keep in mind that there will be many more videos to come.

Sarkeesian will probably discuss these games in another video. Again, this was only the first of many.

Understandable that she wouldn't have looked at it yet. The new Tomb Raider just really... irritates me on many levels. As we probably know by now, Lara Croft was pretty cool in the old days. For this one, she gained Rape as Backstory and the excuse, if I recall correctly, was to make the player want to protect her.

If the rape backstory didn't offend me enough, that idea would. That a female character should be someone that a man wants to defend, or that a rape backstory should be necessary for a male gamer to want to keep their female protagonist safe. Because, as we all know, men just tend to walk Samus into acid all the time because she's a woman. If only she'd been raped!

Making matters worse, they kept it after the backlash (maybe softening it a little -- still basically the same) and they didn't even try to be apologetic. They just doubled down on it. This isn't even "borderline offensive" anymore. I sincerely thought that DmC, the reboot of Devil May Cry, was one of the most offensive modern games I'd seen, but good lord.

Actually, between that and Other M, it seems like there's this growing trend toward knocking formerly awesome heroines down a little. Remember that, prior to Other M entering the continuity, Samus had fended off space pirates at least three times (I haven't played Prime 3, and only have played a little of, and only remember a little of, Prime 2), defended the universe (in whole or part) from Metroids another two times beyond the instances of foiling the aforementioned space pirates, cut off the spread of a horrific parasitic life form at least once, defeated Phazon and Phazon-based beings three times, and survived countless deadly planets and space stations.

She also killed Ridley twice (not counting Meta Ridley, Omega Ridley, or Ridley-X) without any adverse reaction, then suddenly developed Victim Mode in Other M. Counting Meta Ridley and Omega Ridley (and the Prime saga as not being an alternate continuity), she had killed the giant space dragon five times prior to Other M in terms of timeline. Her reactions do a little more than stretch suspension of disbelief, to say the least. It seems like another one of those contrivances to induce the aforementioned "protective" reaction in male gamers.

tl;dr these things make me very angry on about five different levels, but I'm getting sidetracked.

The simple answer is that it has to do with how we treat the human body. Western culture (in large parts thanks to religion) has not normalized nudity - instead, we sexualize the human body and make viewing it taboo. Plus the thing you hide and call off-limits the most is often what fascinates people. Google the subject if it interests you and leave the topic for another time/place.

My apologies - I was trying to make a point. You said these repeated tropes don't always have an affect, but you then pointed out that you knew people who acted as if they had been affected by the repetition of that trope.

The fact that there is a cumulative effect is true regardless of what we might believe. When you have many different mediums and medias propagating the same message, the message starts to stick. There is the example of how all these outlets question Barack Obama's religion until a segment of the population believes he's actually Muslim. There's the fact that (primarily) women are constantly told that they're not skinny enough or tan enough or pretty enough, to the extent that a huge number of prepubescent girls have body image issues and many more teenagers suffer from eating disorders. There is undeniable cause-and-affect in what we say and how people react.

I don't think that's a bad idea, and aside from potentially being anti-climactic (which can be fixed such as by, for instance, afterwards having the final boss fight where the male and female characters have to team up) I don't think it would hurt a game on its own. If the rest of the game is fun and original, then even those who don't like the ending should still enjoy the rest of it. (Mass Effect is still a spectacular series despite the reaction to the end of 3, for instance.)

Yes, Dixie would still count because she's female. That said, just because she was never captured doesn't mean she's immune to other tropes. (I don't know much about the character so I can't say for certain, of course.) Keep in mind that there will be many more videos to come.

Sarkeesian will probably discuss these games in another video. Again, this was only the first of many.

Excuse me, but didn't you previously say

So are you interested in analysis or not?

I'm amused that you didn't/couldn't respond to any of my points, so instead you linked to a video that misses half of Sarkeesian's points. I'm all for criticizing her video, but this was a poor attempt at best. Heck, let's counter his points:

Thunderf00t starts by ignoring half of Sarkeesian's video, and subsequently her points about the Mario and Zelda series. Good way to start an analysis.

0:45 - Thunderf00t takes Sarkeesian's quote out of context by implying that she called Double Dragon itself regressive. What she was actually saying was that the scene in every Double Dragon game where the woman gets punched in the stomach and dragged away (with her behind/underwear in full view) is what is regressive. He obviously ignores that she is talking specifically about the damsel in distress trope, nothing else. She might talk about this character outside of this trope in other videos, but in this one video she was not going to cover everything. I don't know why everyone keeps forgetting this, because the video even says Part 1 in the title.

2:05 - Thunderf00t claims that Sarkeesian is somehow saying that tropes only negatively affect women. She never says this. Her videos focus on women because she is knowledgeable about and interested in the subject. Anyone is free to discuss Tropes VS Men, Tropes VS Homosexuals, Tropes VS Black People, or whatever else.

3:00 - Thunderf00t talks about how her brief overview of the trope she is focusing doesn't describe the game well, missing the fact that she's focusing on the trope, not the game as a whole. He essentially says that the fact that the male characters care so much they're willing to save her somehow changes things. Sarkeesian's point was that it doesn't matter, especially because her kidnapping is about developing a male's character arc alone - he lost something he values, so he goes after it. Whether this something is a woman or a valuable item, the result is the same - the women isn't going to save herself, and thus she is no different than an object. Whether or not he goes after the object does not change the core of the trope, ie. women is kidnapped and can't get away herself.

5:00 - He continues missing the point so sorely it's sad. She's not saying "don't help people who've been captured" - she's saying "the portrayal of people who have been captured if often of a woman who needs saving by a man." We're talking about portrayal here.

9:00 - Pretty much just "look at me, I can make stupid arguments!" Weird complaint that men have to go through so much to save women. He forgets that her point is that men get to do things, but their female counterparts are relegated to just sitting around and waiting until the man shoes up, instead of doing something, like say attempting to free herself.

11:20 - Thunderf00t claims that in trying to make a profit, it's okay to have poor writing, make no effort to be original, and insult a good chunk of your potential market (because yes, girls buy games too).

12:00 - More stupid arguments. I'm so impressed.

12:45 - Thunderf00t tells a pop culture critic to make games for women. The same way Sarkeesian isn't knowledgeable about or interested in discussing how tropes affect men, the same applies for making games. There are already female indie game-making companies, and they're already ignored and insulted plenty. He also implies games with strong female characters won't make a profit - except that some do.

13:25 - Shames her for being a critic rather than a creator, as if that's a bad thing. Tell that to all the respected book, film, theatre and food critics who don't produce books/film/theatre/food.

16:00 - Thunderf00t talks about the biological differences between men and women. He does not explain why this means women shouldn't be treated equally to men. Should we not all be treated equally, no matter our age, race, gender, religions, nationality?

18:45 - Thunderf00t, like others, points out that Sarkeesian has disabled comments on her video. Because this clearly has nothing to do with her not wanting any more threats of rape and violence, which she's been receiving ever since she proposed the project months ago. It's not as if other venues of criticizing her aren't open - Thunderf00t himself is speaking in a video response.

I'm not against criticism, but if you're going to try, or refer to people who do try (especially after claiming that you don't care about the topic), then at least use arguments that refer to and refute her points.

...like what, exactly? All Sarkeesian did was analyze games, the same way book reviewers analyze books, movie critics analyze movies, food critics criticize food, and so on. People have been reviewing and criticizing and analyzing for thousands of years - this isn't something that's unique to feminists.

To repeat, in case this has been unclear, this video is only the first of many. If you're wondering why she didn't discuss a certain character or game yet, it's probably because she will do so at a later point.

~Psychic

Thank you for this, thank you so much for this!!

Seriously if that guy was talking any more out of his ***....

It's also really funny how he just showed the same two video game clips over and over and over again to try and prove a point.

Proud claimer of Cyndaquil and Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed !!
Also proud claimer of Assassin's Creed 2 the game!!
Just became the proud claimer of the Marvel's Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show ^_^!!!

I can't really find any statistics of the amount of people that are actually impressionalize by this specific trope, so I can't really argue against it at the moment.

Trying to statistically measure whether or not tropes throughout all media influence people is the wrong way to try and overturn her arguments. She's arguing from the perspective in which "man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun." In other words, these are man-made social constructions. To completely turn her trope-unpacking argument on its head, you would need to *scientifically prove all of these tropes and gender differences are the collective result of evolution (good luck with that). You would need to completely derail that these are not "webs spun" but result from our intrinsic nature as male/female. And that still wouldn't justify further propagation.

*I use the term scientifically pretty loosely here; the reasoning behind it will more likely be pop-evopsych/sociobio pseudoscience

None of them were. He's essentially implying that disagreeing with Sarkeesian is sexist.

Originally Posted by Psychic

11:20 - Thunderf00t claims that in trying to make a profit, it's okay to have poor writing, make no effort to be original, and insult a good chunk of your potential market (because yes, girls buy games too).

~Psychic

Of course it is. It's perfectly ok to write poor, unoriginal material and insult your potential market if that's what you want to do.

He continues missing the point so sorely it's sad. She's not saying "don't help people who've been captured" - she's saying "the portrayal of people who have been captured if often of a woman who needs saving by a man." We're talking about portrayal here.

In other words, Sarkeesian isn't complaining that video game men step up to help when video game women are kidnapped and helpless - she's complaining that video game women keep being kidnapped and helpless in the first place (and, in part, that the person who has to help them is so disproportionately often a man). The same writers who decide the guy is going to help can also decide not to have the girl be kidnapped at all, or to have her take a more active role in her escape, or to make the kidnapped person a man, or to make the savior a woman. Trying to twist it into "Why shouldn't the guys help?" is acting as if the actual girl-getting-kidnapped-and-the-only-one-who-can-save-her-is-a-man is completely out of the writers' control and the only part they can affect is whether the guy steps up to the task. If that really were the case, then yeah, they should generally have them help, but it obviously isn't.

Originally Posted by Psychic

Weird complaint that men have to go through so much to save women. He forgets that her point is that men get to do things, but their female counterparts are relegated to just sitting around and waiting until the man shoes up, instead of doing something, like say attempting to free herself.

Additionally, while this kind of thing is brought up a lot in discussions of sexism by the anti-feminist side, it actually proves the feminist point. Sexism is a double-edged sword: the same attitude that fuels the Damsel in Distress trope, that women are passive, frail and helpless while men are active, strong and heroic, also leads to the idea that women are precious and men are disposable, that men should make disproportionate sacrifices for women, that women can't rape men, etc. etc. etc. Men are hurt by sexism too - but not because of some separate independent phenomenon of misandry, but by the exact same system that's hurting women. Fighting sexism benefits everyone at the same time. If the attitude that women are frail and need to be saved truly goes away, so does the expectation that men must lay down their lives for women in a way women don't need to for men. If the attitude that women are supposed to be motherly caretakers while men are the breadwinners goes away, so will the attitude that disproportionately gives custody of children to the mother in divorce cases. Feminists focus on the women's side of things because on balance women clearly have the short end of the stick in most regards, but when people point out that men are affected by gender discrimination too, I think, Yes, exactly! The fact this also hurts men is more reason we should try to change it, but anti-feminists keep bringing it up as if "Oh, this sucks for you? Well, it also sucks for us!" is somehow an argument for not trying to get rid of the sucky thing.

Originally Posted by Snorunt conservationist

Of course it is. It's perfectly ok to write poor, unoriginal material and insult your potential market if that's what you want to do.

It's okay in the sense that you can and nobody can stop you, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism. Going "They just want to make a profit" in response to criticism is evading the issue - not caring that your output is poor, unoriginal or insulting doesn't make it any less poor, unoriginal and insulting, nor does it mean critics such as Anita Sarkeesian shouldn't call it poor, unoriginal and insulting.

Last edited by Dragonfree; 18th March 2013 at 4:19 PM.

Chapter 65: Three Dragons
The story of an ordinary boy on an impossible quest in a world that isn't as black and white as he always thought it was.(rough draft of the remaining chapters finished for NaNoWriMo; to be edited and posted)

Morphic(completed, plus silly extras)
A few scientists get drunk and start fiddling with gene splicing. Ten years later, they're taking care of eight half-Pokémon kids, each freakier than the next, while a religious fanatic plots to murder them all.

It's okay in the sense that you can and nobody can stop you, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism.

I don't think that was her point (correct me if I'm wrong). I read it as her believing it's not ok to make such games simply to turn a profit.

Going "They just want to make a profit" in response to criticism is evading the issue

No it isn't. Disputing the rights of people to create such projects and the choice of people to buy them is evading (or at least being overly dismissive of) the issue. You cannot take the commercial aspects of the media out of a discussion about the media, even when discussing artistic merit. I'm not arguing Sarkeesian is or isn't doing this for the record.

not caring that your output is poor, unoriginal or insulting doesn't make it any less poor, unoriginal and insulting, nor does it mean critics such as Anita Sarkeesian shouldn't call it poor, unoriginal and insulting.

It's okay in the sense that you can and nobody can stop you, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism. Going "They just want to make a profit" in response to criticism is evading the issue - not caring that your output is poor, unoriginal or insulting doesn't make it any less poor, unoriginal and insulting, nor does it mean critics such as Anita Sarkeesian shouldn't call it poor, unoriginal and insulting.

I wouldn't say that indicating the profit motive is evading the issue, since it's underlining one of the causes of the current problem... and let's be honest: profit motives do contribute to this. They're not the only cause, but they aren't without their influence.

You do know the biggest problem with the whole troopes women damsels thing is that it is (One) based on 1980-90 video games and ignores the newer games. Tomb raider, Kotor, Halo, pokemon, Metroid, ect all feature strong women characters. (Two) She has made herself into a damsel in destress. She made herself a item being passed between her protectors and those that think the video was bull. If she wanted to destroy the myth of damsels she would allow comments, but evidently there is some truth behind girls needing protectors. Disagree? Please explain.

Thanks to treeco123

LIGHT SIDE HAS CUPCAKES
DARK SIDE OFFERS COOKIESJOIN THE DERPY SIDE.... WE GOT MUFFINS

You do know the biggest problem with the whole troopes women damsels thing is that it is (One) based on 1980-90 video games and ignores the newer games. Tomb raider, Kotor, Halo, pokemon, Metroid, ect all feature strong women characters. (Two) She has made herself into a damsel in destress. She made herself a item being passed between her protectors and those that think the video was bull. If she wanted to destroy the myth of damsels she would allow comments, but evidently there is some truth behind girls needing protectors. Disagree? Please explain.

Yes cuz the make me a sandwich and get back in the kitchen jokes would be so great to allow right??

Proud claimer of Cyndaquil and Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed !!
Also proud claimer of Assassin's Creed 2 the game!!
Just became the proud claimer of the Marvel's Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show ^_^!!!

You do know the biggest problem with the whole troopes women damsels thing is that it is (One) based on 1980-90 video games and ignores the newer games. Tomb raider, Kotor, Halo, pokemon, Metroid, ect all feature strong women characters. (Two) She has made herself into a damsel in destress. She made herself a item being passed between her protectors and those that think the video was bull. If she wanted to destroy the myth of damsels she would allow comments, but evidently there is some truth behind girls needing protectors. Disagree? Please explain.

This is the first video in a series of many videos. This is PART ONE featuring the damsel in distress. If you're patient there's a good chance that she will touch up on the games in a newer generation. There are also other tropes that she'll touch up on, and I'm sure she'll bring up the games you've mentioned.

Also maybe it's just me but if I had tons of rape threats thrown at me I wouldn't want to have commentary on my videos either. Just a thought.